Easy? Ha!
Last week, I posted about “fun” facts related to drugs and alcohol in the workplace. That post was an prelude to what I’ll talk about today: What employers ought to do.
As I pointed out last week, marijuana is still an illegal drug under federal law, although the Drug Enforcement Administration has issued proposed regulations that would "downgrade" marijuana to a Schedule III drug (some legitimate uses). Employees in positions that are subject to federal drug laws should be handled in accordance with the applicable federal regulations.
Step One: Know your jurisdiction(s). The laws relating to use of drugs (and, to a lesser degree, alcohol) are changing constantly, especially where use of marijuana and cannabis are concerned. At this moment, 38 states have legalized the use of medical marijuana. Recreational marijuana is legal in 24 states.
The applicable laws will normally be the laws in the states where your employees work. If your company has facilities in most states, or if you have a large and geographically dispersed remote workforce, that means you will have to keep up with a lot. This website has a nice interactive U.S. map that it says was updated as recently as Labor Day.
And it’s not just drug laws that vary from state to state. Many states also have their own disability rights laws. If an employee is legally using medical marijuana to treat a medical condition, then he or she may be protected from discrimination and may be entitled to reasonable accommodation under state law. (As I said last week and say again below, the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect medical marijuana users because marijuana is currently illegal under federal law.)
Step Two: Determine whether any of your jobs are “safety-sensitive,” and, if so, which ones. “Safety-sensitive” can include people who operate heavy or dangerous machinery, and also white-collar sales representatives who are required to drive as part of their jobs. There are plenty of other jobs where impairment could endanger the employee, the employee’s co-workers, or the general public. On the other hand, full-time desk jobs (either at an office or at home), would usually not be considered safety-sensitive. I am oversimplifying greatly, but you get the idea.
Step Three: With safety-sensitive jobs, decide what you want to do in the way of drug/alcohol testing, and (if the employee is in a state where marijuana use is legal) what you want to do about marijuana. A good general recommendation if you have employees in a jurisdiction where recreational use is legal is to treat marijuana use the same way you would treat alcohol use. You would not take action against an employee for enjoying a few beers at home after a hard day at work, but you might justifiably take action against an employee who was three sheets to the wind when reporting for work. Ditto for pot.
But this sounds simpler than it is. Alcohol has generally accepted measures for determining whether someone is “under the influence.” Alcohol is also out of the system a few hours after consumption. Marijuana is more complicated because it stays in the body a long time, meaning people can test positive when they are arguably no longer "impaired." Also, we don’t yet have a generally accepted measure for determining marijuana impairment. Several states have driving under the influence laws that put the level of marijuana impairment at 2-5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. You might be able to adopt a similar standard for your workplace.
Step Four: Decide how aggressive you want to be with employees in non-safety-sensitive jobs. Yes, you can have one set of substance abuse policies for employees in safety-sensitive jobs and another set for everybody else. If the employee is in a state where recreational marijuana use is legal and the position is not safety-sensitive, you shouldn’t be testing for marijuana unless you have (1) reasonable suspicion (2) based on objective evidence (3) to believe that the employee is impaired on the job, and (4) that the impairment is related to marijuana use (same as you’d treat an employee who seems to be drunk on the job).
But marijuana and alcohol aside, you can continue testing all employees for other controlled substances post-offer, on a random basis, based on reasonable suspicion, post-accident, and post-rehabilitation, unless a federal law controls or a specific applicable state law says you can’t. (See Step One, above.)
Step Five: Decide how you want to handle employees who test positive. Do you want to take a hard line and fire them the first time they’re caught? In many states, you can do that – but not all. (See Step One again.) Or, do you prefer to allow them to go through an Employee Assistance Program, at least after a first positive result? In my experience, most employers allow one shot at an EAP if the employee signs a Last Chance Agreement. If the employee ever tests positive again, that’s usually it.
Step Six: Realize that alcohol is in a class by itself from an ADA standpoint. As I discussed last week, alcohol addiction, even with current use, is a “disability” within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act, meaning that employers cannot discriminate against employees based on alcoholism and also have to make reasonable accommodations on a limited basis. (You don’t have to accommodate drinking on the job unless you allow non-alcoholic employees to do it, but you generally do have to allow an employee who is an alcoholic to have time off for rehab and things like that.)
The ADA does not protect “current users of illegal drugs,” even if they are currently addicted. However, drug addicts who are no longer current users are considered persons with disabilities. So they are protected from discrimination and should also be allowed time off as needed to continue their treatment.
Step Seven: If your employees are in a state where marijuana use is still illegal . . . You may still have state laws that apply to drug testing, and you’ll want to comply with those. (See Step One.) Otherwise, you should be safe to ban, test for, and terminate for use of marijuana as well as other illegal drugs.
Step Eight: If your employees are spread among states where recreational marijuana is legal, where medical-only is legal, and where marijuana is illegal . . . Quit your job now while you still can. Just kidding. Here are your options: (1) Comply with the most pro-marijuana law that applies, which means you’d be treating all of your employees as if recreational use is legal. The benefit is that you have a single standard that applies to everybody. That could minimize employee perceptions of unfairness, and it also could make your life a lot simpler. The downside is that you can't be as strict with marijuana use as you legally have the right to be. (2) Apply the applicable law to each employee, which means you’d be most lenient with the employees in recreational states, medium-lenient with the employees in medical-only states, and relatively strict with the employees in “illegal” states. The benefit of this is that you are not tolerating more use of marijuana than you absolutely have to. The downsides, of course, are perceptions of unequal treatment among your employees, and administrative headaches for you.
Step Nine: Don’t forget about legal medications. You may have an applicant or employee who tests positive or is impaired on the job because of legal use of prescription medications, legal use of medical marijuana, or legal use of over-the-counter medications. If that’s the case, the individual may be legally protected and may be entitled to reasonable accommodation. (Have I mentioned in the last five minutes that medical marijuana is still an illegal drug under federal law, so an employee using medical marijuana won’t be protected by the ADA but may be protected by a state disability rights law? I feel like I have. See Step One.)
To use an example that involves neither marijuana nor alcohol, let's say Melvin, a welder with degenerative disc disease, is taking prescription opiates for the pain. Melvin in all likelihood has a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA based on his degenerative disc disease. Assuming welding is a safety-sensitive position (I'm gonna say it is, since it involves fire and molten metal), and that the opiates impair him enough to create a safety risk, then the employer may need to remove Melvin from his regular job duties, at least temporarily. This could include temporarily transferring Melvin to a non-safety-sensitive position or, if that isn’t possible, allowing him to take medical leave until he is no longer on the medication or until his dose becomes low enough to be non-impairing.
In substance abuse policies, I normally include a provision that requires employees to notify Human Resources or another appropriate person in the company if they are taking any legal medications that could create a safety issue or impair the employee’s ability to competently perform the duties of the job. But I also state in the policy that the employee will not be disciplined or discharged for making such a disclosure. Instead, the company will engage in the "interactive process" with the employee and (we hope) reach agreement on reasonable accommodations that will eliminate the risk or reduce it to an acceptable level.
Step Ten: Yes, this has all become ridiculously complicated. If this post hasn’t convinced you, I don’t know what will. Be sure to consult with qualified employment counsel when determining the laws that apply to your employees, deciding what you’re going to do, and drafting and enforcing your substance abuse policies.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010